The Royal Family and the Media


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
But why do they all need the same shot is my question? It's not like they have to go back to their boss and turn it in. Their boss would already have the shot to publish.

And I figured it was standard procedure because SO MANY of them complain about it. So perhaps, it's just the younger generation/ If that's the case, then yes, clearly, it's not just an issue Harry has with them.

Because they want to make money. I mean it's not that complicated to understand why they want the shot.

I have no idea if it's just the younger generation. Even if it were, Harry seemed to be the one younger royal that would make it a point to speak and now according to Arthur, he doesn't.
 
Because they want to make money. I mean it's not that complicated to understand why they want the shot.

How does anyone make money if everyone has the same shot? They don't. The reason the woman at Sandringham made money was because she wasn't at the media pen and had a better angle.

Again, St. George's isn't as big as WA, and space is limited. It's unlikely that they would allow all photographers. If they allow some, and not others, how would that work out? Is that a fair system then? Or just allow AP in and have them share with EVERYONE. Seems much fairer if you can't allow all of them in.
 
Last edited:
This gives the few photogs the opportunity to make more money and gives the other photogs a chance to get the carriage money shots. When it comes to W&K's wedding the most memorable was when the left in the Aston Martin.
 
Many of these freelance photographers are the ones who do the grunt work on royal engagements.

Long after Anderson Cooper and People Magazine have gone back to America after the wedding, it’s people like Arthur Edwards et al who take the photos of Harry at one of his charities.
 
Right. Harry doesn't necessarily have a problem with all media. It's those that go over the line. He jokes with Rhiannon. He's answered questions from her when he arrives at events. He's done interviews with a number of them. He even introduced Meghan to Roya Nikkhah at Nottingham when they saw her at the walkabout.

I just wanted to add a comment for better quality and a better discussion. This is what my degree and career center around, i.e. journalism. I think too many people are confusing paparazzi with royal photographers. These are the official photographers who supply the publications who have written the articles. They are not responsible for the content those publications publish. The royal photographers don’t “go over the line”. Conflating the two is like mixing up the New York Times or Wall Street Journal with the National Enquirer or OK! Magazine. These are ‘elites’ so-to-speak. I think it is ridiculous for Harry and Meghan to prevent them from taking pictures. It solves nothing and it’s taking out anger at the wrong people. Not only that but they are not the first royals to have horrible things written about them nor the last. Go after the publications for false stories or whatever but the royal photographers are not responsible. This will only come back to bite them later.

This is these people’s careers and livelihood. I don’t think many people here really understand what their ( the photographers) concerns are and are being too flippant about the issue. St. George’s is not small enough for this to be necessary nor is Windsor (which is the public property of the British government not the royals). This is a public wedding. They wouldn’t be broadcasting it or have the media presence at all if that were the case. He’s the 2nd son of the heir.
 
Last edited:
I just wanted to add a comment for better quality and a better discussion. This is what my degree and career center around, i.e. journalism. I think too many people are confusing paparazzi with royal photographers. These are the official photographers who supply the publications who have written the articles. They are not responsible for the content those publications publish. The royal photographers don’t “go over the line”. Conflating the two is like mixing up the New York Times or Wall Street Journal with the National Enquirer or OK! Magazine. These are ‘elites’ so-to-speak. I think it is ridiculous for Harry and Meghan to prevent them from taking pictures. It solves nothing and it’s taking out anger at the wrong people. Not only that but they are not the first royals to have horrible things written about them nor the last. Go after the publications for false stories or whatever but the royal photographers are not responsible. This will only come back to bite them later.
But those photographs line the pockets of the those tabloid. And your comparison of WSJ and NYT to National Enquirer or OK is not accurate in this case. Arthur Edwards works for The Sun. That's a tabloid, not the "elites" you speak of. And just to point out, they are not denying anyone photos. All photos the AP takes will be shared with other outlets, just like BBC's live feed will be sent to others as well. It's not like AP will get the exclusive publishing rights and they are leaving the rest in the dust.

And to go after the publication is almost useless as they have to publish an apology, but that's about it. And what does it do in the end? They weren't in the business to be accurate or fair in the first place, they are there to sensationalize. The only effective way is to go after their pockets.
 
Last edited:
The PA competes with the likes of Getty and Shutterstock. The PA sells it’s photos just like any other agency.

If I’m a freelancer who is part of the every day royal rota, why should I get left out of trying to make a buck.
 
But those photographs line the pockets of the those tabloid. And your comparison of WSJ and NYT to National Enquirer or OK is not accurate in this case. Arthur Edwards works for The Sun. That's a tabloid, not the "elites" you speak of. And just to point out, they are not denying anyone photos. All photos the AP takes will be shared with other outlets, just like BBC's live feed will be sent to others as well. It's not like AP will get the exclusive publishing rights and they are leaving the rest in the dust.

And to go after the publication is almost useless as they have to publish an apology, but that's about it. And what does it do in the end? They weren't in the business to be accurate or fair in the first place, they are there to sensationalize. The only effective way is to go after their pockets.

You aren’t understanding what I am saying. Yes, some photographers work specifically for publications but their job is to supply photos. Arthur Edward is a royal photographers not the paparazzi. He is ‘official’ which is why I said ‘elite’. It does not matter who he works for or who he supplies. He’s not responsible for their content. Edwards gets paid for photos. The publications pay for the photos and do what the will with them. It’s not a community money pot that pays all employees. So what if AP or BBC gets photos? The only one making money is that agency. The publications aren’t hurt. They buy those photos from AP and publish the same crap. The photographers suffer for nothing. They’ve done nothing wrong.

Publications are fined and, yes, they apologize as well. There are many lawsuits by famous individuals against them. The Cambridge’s has a big lawsuit in france because of the paps. Arthur Edwards does not fall under that group nor do the other royal photographers.
 
It’s great for Americans that networks and press are covering the wedding but at the end of the day Meghan is marrying into the British royal family. No matter if she was the popular woman in American, it wouldn’t impact British public opinion.

It will be the tone set by media in Britain that matters. Yes it will be the usually gushing coverage on the BBC but that’s only short term. Harry and Meghan maybe going for their short term gain at the sacrifice of long term prosperity.
 
Last edited:
You aren’t understanding what I am saying. Yes, some photographers work specifically for publications but their job is to supply photos. Arthur Edward is a royal photographers not the paparazzi. He is ‘official’ which is why I said ‘elite’. It does not matter who he works for or who he supplies. He’s not responsible for their content. Edwards gets paid for photos. The publications pay for the photos and do what the will with them. It’s not a community money pot that pays all employees. So what if AP or BBC gets photos? The only one making money is that agency. The publications aren’t hurt. They buy those photos from AP and publish the same crap. The photographers suffer for nothing. They’ve done nothing wrong.

Publications are fined and, yes, they apologize as well. There are many lawsuits by famous individuals against them. The Cambridge’s has a big lawsuit in france because of the paps. Arthur Edwards does not fall under that group nor do the other royal photographers.
Cambridge lawsuit is different situation and in different jurisdiction. I believe in Britain, you have to make a complaint to IPSO, and they decide if it violated the standards. I don't believe there is a fine, but each party pays for their cost in the proceedings. At the end, if it's determined that the paper violated codes of conduct, IPSO will rule that they have to apologize and run a retraction, as was the case when The Sun basically insinuated Meghan is a porn star on their front page. I don't think they are fined. Usually, that's when it all stops. They can appeal at times, but it's not litigated in court. Of course, I could be completely wrong on this as I'm not too familiar with UK regulations, and can only piece together what I've seen and read over time. I remember when Harry issued the letter, the tabloids were up in arms about how they don't know what he's talking about, and how if it was true, he should've just complained to IPSO. Well, MONTHS later, we saw the apology from The Sun. Funny that the misleading headline made their front page in bold and capital letters, but the apology was a tiny little thing.

And photographers might not have done something wrong, but for some of them it's the price of working for those that do not follow basic decency in coverage. The type of "news" their paper runs is pretty consistent, and you can't tell me they don't know it. As for the freelancers, it's unfortunate, but at times it's just the way it is. Like I mentioned earlier, they seem to be not making exceptions at this wedding. Once they have a rule, they follow it even if it's inconvenient at times. Like with no politicians. So if they decide everyone gets the same photos, then there is no reason to let some in, but not others. At the end of the day, this isn't a state or semi-state wedding and it's on private grounds. They get the say. If this was in public area, that'd be different. And notice how all the broadcasting channels aren't whining that they have to get it from BBC?

Now they can always boycott his events from now on if they so choose. Of course, I have a feeling they won't because ultimately, stories and pictures of Harry and Meghan sells.
 
Last edited:
Because they want to make money. I mean it's not that complicated to understand why they want the shot.

I have no idea if it's just the younger generation. Even if it were, Harry seemed to be the one younger royal that would make it a point to speak and now according to Arthur, he doesn't.

This is what is to me the more concerning part, more than the media and wedding issue since they will still be getting their darn shots either way.

My concern is that I always loved following Harry's events because he understood the media and used that to his advantage in a way that I thought was especially savvy. I have felt a definite chill in Harry overall this past year toward the media, but also just less warmth overall on his engagements.

Harry did a lot to improve his image by working with reporters and papers and getting them to cover IG and stuff. For Arthur to speak so bluntly tells me this relationship has truly broken down and that isn't good IMO. It isn't all Harry's fault, but at the same time he needs the media to be on side and needs to be more diplomatic and less hot headed or driven by his anger. He won't help Meghan in the long run by not having smart media outreach.
 
Cambridge lawsuit is different situation and in different jurisdiction. I believe in Britain, you have to make a complaint to IPSO, and they decide if it violated the standards. I don't believe there is a fine, but each party pays for their cost in the proceedings. At the end, if it's determined that the paper violated codes of conduct, IPSO will rule that they have to apologize and run a retraction, as was the case when The Sun basically insinuated Meghan is a porn star on their front page. I don't think they are fined. Usually, that's when it all stops. They can appeal at times, but it's not litigated in court.

And photographers might not have done something wrong, but for some of them it's the price of working for those that do not follow basic decent in coverage. The type of "news" their paper runs is pretty consistent, and you can't tell me they don't know it. As for the freelancers, it's unfortunate, but at times it's just the way it is. At the end of the day, this isn't a state or semi-state wedding and it's on private grounds. They get the say. If this was in public area, that'd be different. And notice how all the broadcasting channels aren't whining that they have to get it from BBC?

Now they can always boycott his events from now on if they so choose. Of course, I have a feeling they won't because ultimately, stories and pictures of Harry and Meghan sells.

This is ridiculous. The way this is being handled only the photographers are losing out and none of the publications. That fact alone makes this move pointless and more than a bit petty.

Also these aren’t private grounds. I already said that. St George’s and Windsor do not belong to the royals. They may get the say but it will backfire.
 
St George’s Chapel is open to the public. Anyone can attend services there.
 
This is ridiculous. The way this is being handled only the photographers are losing out and none of the publications. That fact alone makes this move pointless and more than a bit petty.

Also these aren’t private grounds. I already said that. St George’s and Windsor do not belong to the royals. They may get the say but it will backfire.

The papers are loosing out. No one will have the exclusive. We all know something isn't that valuable when everyone has the same thing. It's the exclusivity that matters. The photographers are still allowed to capture any money shot they can along the procession. However, treating the photograph of them coming out the same way as they've always treated the live feed of the wedding is fair. And you still haven't answered my question if it would've been fairer for them to allow in some photographers, but not all of them? Because quite frankly, I don't think they can handle everyone being in there and then coming in and out.

And Windsor Castle isn't a public street. They have the right to close down the Castle when it's necessary as they did for the two days that CHOGM was at Windsor Castle.
 
Last edited:
They've been more aggressive than gushy toward her anyways. So really nothing will change. They have attacked her since Day 1 and 18 days to go they still attacking her and the day after they will go back to attacking her. So frankly I doubt blame Harry.
 
It’s great for Americans that networks and press are covering the wedding but at the end of the day Meghan is marrying into the British royal family. No matter if she was the popular woman in American, it wouldn’t impact British public opinion.

It will be the tone set by media in Britain that matters. Yes it will be the usually gushing coverage on the BBC but that’s only short term. Harry and Meghan maybe going for their short term gain at the sacrifice of long term prosperity.

Well, considering The Sun has already insinuated she's filmed porn on their front page, various tabloids paid estranged family members to dish all kinds of unverified dirt on, and already had all kinds of unsavory headlines about her including racist coverage. Not sure how much worse they can do.

And really, weren't some upset that Meghan is fame hungry, shouldn't this calm their worries?
 
Last edited:
The police can close down anything due to security concerns.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are British media that complain now that there isn’t much access to the Cambridge children and that only a selected photographer is invited to take milestone pictures of the children, which is much different from when William was a child.

William and Harry are doing what they think is in the best interest of their families. They’ve certainly suffered enough long term consequences from the frequent nasty tone of the British media.
 
William would be the first person to admit he doesn’t like the press. He’s been bashed on that for years. And actually it’s Catherine who takes the majority of pics of her children. No profit there.

Harry was always supposed to be the happy go lucky bother. Many royal photographers who were in his corner leading up to the wedding are now left a little bitter. Hope for his sake it’s not lasting.
 
Two things about the speculated reason for the limited photographers.

1) It's purely Arthur Edwards' speculations as to why that is. He says Harry doesn't say Good Morning to them anymore, but Harry does joke around and answer some questions to certain reporters. So clearly, he's not upset at everyone if he's even upset at the photographers. I'm not sure limiting access to this is any different than not having a million different cameras in the Chapel and having BBC distribute to other channels globally.

2) If Arthur Edwards' speculation is that Harry's read the stuff they've been saying in the tabloids and decided that they don't want anyone near it, that says a lot more about what Arthur's opinion on the coverage has been, doesn't it. And he's been around longer than most of us and have seen a lot more.
 
There will always be bad or nasty stories but the media are necessary. I say pick your battles, learn to let stuff roll off your back, and when appropriate take action but you will never change the tabloids. The bad actions of a few do not reflect everyone else. It’s a two-way street for royals and the press

If anyone is going know what their talking about it’s Arthur. He has commented before on how well the royals know him and respect him and the others who follow them. Harry has lashed out before. He’s complained more than William over the years and got in trouble for punching a photographers. He’s not perfect nor right all the time. In this case, he comes off petulant too me and unfortunately Meghan does to by extension. William and Kate haven’t been great with the press either. I understand both couples’ frustrations. They both have plenty of reasons to dislike the tabloids but they need to learn to differentiate. The tabloids are not the entire media just a part.
 
Last edited:
William would be the first person to admit he doesn’t like the press. He’s been bashed on that for years. And actually it’s Catherine who takes the majority of pics of her children. No profit there.

Harry was always supposed to be the happy go lucky bother. Many royal photographers who were in his corner leading up to the wedding are now left a little bitter. Hope for his sake it’s not lasting.

They've used at least Chris Jackson.

Happy go lucky doesn't mean you take all kinds of crap and not take issue with it. Especially they've come for the woman you love. And as mentioned, photographers don't write the papers, right? So how is it for "his sake"? They will show up to his events as long as photos of him sells. For example, Anne seems nice enough to them, I'm sure they aren't showing up at every one of her events. It's ultimately a profit game for them.

And can we get some clarification on how many photographers will actually be there? Initially it was posted that there will only be one outside the Chapel, but the NYT article just said it'll be one inside the Chapel, and four or five outside. Which is it?
 
I would take what British reporters and photographers are saying about the numbers. The NYT isn’t quoting anyone.
 
Well, considering The Sun has already insinuated she's filmed porn on their front page, various tabloids paid estranged family members to dish all kinds of unverified dirt on, and already had all kinds of unsavory headlines about her including racist coverage. Not sure how much worse they can do.

And really, weren't some upset that Meghan is fame hungry, shouldn't this calm their worries?

Exactly so! :flowers: I think Harry and Meghan will choose a discreet lifestyle as have William and Kate. Official duties as required but everything else, the less fuss made the better (perhaps) in their view. Just a hunch.
 
Exactly so! :flowers: I think Harry and Meghan will choose a discreet lifestyle as have William and Kate. Official duties as required but everything else, the less fuss made the better (perhaps) in their view. Just a hunch.

This does make me think if they have children, would we even have regular updates on the children. The Wessexes don't provide regular updates on their children if I remember correctly, but the press did have a fair amount of access to the Wales children and York children growing up.
 
If photographers who are currently complaining had received their preferred spot, we wouldn’t be hearing about a supposed problem. There’s plenty of video available on the photo agency sites that show Harry recently greeting the media, it’s easily searchable for anyone to see.

Some of those photographers currently complaining will either get over it and click happily away from their designated spots, or someone else will happily replace them.
 
This does make me think if they have children, would we even have regular updates on the children. The Wessexes don't provide regular updates on their children if I remember correctly, but the press did have a fair amount of access to the Wales children and York children growing up.

Very likely. That's their biggest gripe with the Cambridges. They have very limited access to those kids. Harry will follow the same footsteps. Harry was "happy go lucky" enough until the press went after his future wife.

People say pick your battles but I think loved ones are the perfect battle to fight for. These men won't forget how they lost their mother so the press pushing their buttons this way ultimately hurts them all.
 
This does make me think if they have children, would we even have regular updates on the children. The Wessexes don't provide regular updates on their children if I remember correctly, but the press did have a fair amount of access to the Wales children and York children growing up.

Correct. :flowers: In fact, I recall Louise causing a sensation at the Cambridge wedding (I think it was), because that was maybe the first time she had such a public display. Even James has been pretty much in the shadows. People seem to accept it as understandable, too. Wonder how that will go over with Harry's and Meghan's brood?

Very likely. That's their biggest gripe with the Cambridges. They have very limited access to those kids. Harry will follow the same footsteps. Harry was "happy go lucky" enough until the press went after his future wife.

People say pick your battles but I think loved ones are the perfect battle to fight for. These men won't forget how they lost their mother so the press pushing their buttons this way ultimately hurts them all.

Family is everything. :flowers: That will be their ballast. I think it is wonderful that Meghan is such a homebody. They will have an insular family life, I think, just like William and Kate. (It's why I think they need their own country house).
 
One thing for sure is that with William and Harry, they've definitely been drawing a trench in the sand and filling that trench with all kind of nasties to put up a barrier between their public lives and their private lives. This is actually how it should be. They are definitely trying to cram the worms back into the can that were let loose during the 80s and the 90s when anything goes was the motto of the press covering the royal family began and its not improved much since.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom